Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] PCI: Define scoped based management functions

[Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>]

Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 01:46:56PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > Dan Williams wrote:
> > > Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

[snip]

> > 
> > Also in this case we need devfn assigned first.
> > 
> > Is the above patch compliant with current style guidelines?
> > 
> > Or would it be better to do?
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> > index b14237f824cf..8a180c6abb67 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> > @@ -975,15 +975,14 @@ static void cxl_cper_event_call(enum cxl_event_type ev_type,
> >                                 struct cxl_cper_event_rec *rec)
> >  {
> >         struct cper_cxl_event_devid *device_id = &rec->hdr.device_id;
> > -       struct pci_dev *pdev __free(pci_dev_put) = NULL;
> >         enum cxl_event_log_type log_type;
> >         struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds;
> > -       unsigned int devfn;
> > +       unsigned int devfn = PCI_DEVFN(device_id->device_num, device_id->func_num);
> > +       struct pci_dev *pdev __free(pci_dev_put) = pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(
> > +                                                       device_id->segment_num,
> > +                                                       device_id->bus_num, devfn);
> 
> I don't really care about this specific instance; my comment was more
> about the commit log for the "Define scope based management functions"
> patch, thinking maybe the example could encourage get/put togetherness
> when it's practical.

Ok thanks!
Ira